Picosecond and Q-Switched Laser Patents: Filing Trends and Open Claim Space
Filing has cooled from its 2019 peak. 362 records that year, falling to 105 by 2024 (-61% from 2021's 270) — publication lag means 2025-26 figures are still filling in. Filings ran from 245 in 2017 to a peak of 362 in 2019, then declined to 105 by 2024 — a -61% move from 2021's 270. 2025 and 2026 are shown but understated, since publication typically lags filing by around 18 months.
- 1CORNING INC6.1%
- 2ALCON INC3.9%
- 3ALCON LENSX INC3.3%
- 4ELECTRO SCI IND INC3.3%
- 5AMO DEVELOPMENT LLC2.6%
See the full picosecond and q-switched lasers analysis in Eureka
- The complete ranking, not just the top five
- Every IPC branch with its share of the corpus
- The most-cited records, and where claim space is still thin
Common questions about picosecond and Q-switched laser patents
What is the difference between picosecond and Q-switched laser patents in terms of claim scope?
Q-switched laser patents typically claim nanosecond-range pulse durations and rely on thermal or photomechanical tissue effects, while picosecond laser patents claim shorter pulse durations that favour photoacoustic disruption with less collateral thermal damage. In practice, many filings in this dataset claim both regimes within a single family, distinguishing them by pulse-duration ranges and fluence thresholds rather than by device architecture. When scoping a filing, check whether the claimed pulse-duration range overlaps prior art in both categories, since examiners often treat them as adjacent rather than distinct technical fields.
Who are the leading patent holders in picosecond laser technology?
The ranked assignee list shows a clear volume leader with 305 records, well ahead of the fifth-ranked holder at 130, but the top 5 combined still account for only 19.3% of all 4,961 records in scope. This means leadership by volume does not translate into control of the field the way it might in a more concentrated technology area. Several of the largest historical filers show no filings in the most recent year, though this may reflect publication lag rather than an actual exit from the space.
Why does welding and materials processing (B23K) appear so heavily in tattoo-removal laser patents?
B23K covers welding, soldering and brazing, and it carries the largest single share of records in this dataset at 25.2% of the 4,961 records in scope — larger than the surgical (A61B) or laser-source (H01S) classes. This happens because picosecond and Q-switched pulse-parameter claims (duration, fluence, dosage) are often written generically enough to cover both metal surface processing and tissue interaction, and the same underlying physics of rapid energy deposition applies to both. Anyone drafting or searching claims in this space should check materials-processing art, not just medical-device art.
Disclaimer. This analysis is based on Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent records and is provided for general information and reference only. Patent data carries inherent limitations — recent filings are under-counted because of publication lag, counts may be on a record or family basis, classification and applicant-name data may contain errors or duplicates, and the underlying search query defines the scope shown — so the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing here is an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Verify independently and review with qualified patent and legal professionals before acting on it.
Method: Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from a Patsnap search on Picosecond and Q-Switched Lasers covering 2015–2026, data cut-off 2026-07-31. Counts reflect published records only and shift as new filings publish. Every share divides by all records in scope. Data: Patsnap Eureka. See the full landscape report.